Compare against competitors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, but the description adds substantial beyond-annotation behavior: each uncached competitor consumes one audit against the daily quota, quota shortfall leads to a ranked subset plus a skipped list, over-quota returns an error with reset time, and it never silently drops competitors or invents scores. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use-case triggers, return behavior, quota mechanics, over-quota error, subscription requirement, and fallback alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps critical decision-making information up front.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying what the tool returns: each competitor's score, where they appear that the site does not, a quota summary, a skipped list, and an over-quota error with reset time. It also covers the subscription prerequisite and the recommended fallback action, making the tool fully callable by an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents domain and competitors. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that by explaining that each competitor not already cached costs one audit and that a quota shortfall changes which competitors are evaluated. This helps the agent set expectations and explain outcomes to the user.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare a website's AI visibility head-to-head against named competitors.' It then gives concrete example queries ('how do I stack up against X and Y'), making exactly when to use it unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recommendations or run_audit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states 'Use this when' followed by three concrete user-phrasing triggers. It also tells the agent when not to proceed: if the user lacks a Website Auditor subscription, call get_sample_audit instead, naming the alternative and the condition for choosing it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.